{
  "id": 8652718,
  "name": "THOMAS R. PURNELL v. W. H. WORTH, STATE TREASURER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Purnell v. Worth",
  "decision_date": "1895-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "157",
  "last_page": "158",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "117 N.C. 157"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 207,
    "char_count": 2469,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.425,
    "sha256": "a6dbf00eff70cb2764bb91a47ab9403fec6660619afe1f3c89f4d17be5dc7a18",
    "simhash": "1:b9356ea4845299db",
    "word_count": 417
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:25:58.395701+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THOMAS R. PURNELL v. W. H. WORTH, STATE TREASURER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, J.:\nThe other points arising in this case are disposed of in Bank v. Worth, ante. The sole point remaining to be decided in this case is whether an attorney is a \u201cnecessary expense\u201d for a committee, for we put out of view for this purpose the admitted fact that these services were rendered after the adjournment of the Legislature and we have held that the committee was authorized to sit after that time only for the purpose of making their report. The legislature has unquestionably authority, should they deem it necessary, to authorize a committee to employ counsel. But they did not do so. There is no implication even that this committee should employ counsel. On the contrary the committee was not authorized to pass upon any legal question or make any judicial determination. Their duties were those of a jury, to \u201cfind the facts from the evidence- and report said facts and also set out the evidence in full in said report.\u201d There is certainly no indication here of a necessity for the assistance of counsel \u201clearned in law.\u201d It is witnesses \u201clearned in the facts\u201d only who are needed. But we would not be. understood as holding that, if the committee had been called on by the terms of the resolution to pass on legal questions, in such case counsel would have been a necessary expense. Non constat but the committee might be composed of lawyers, or the Assembly might be willing to trust the committee\u2019s legal judgment in the first instance, since the reports of committees are subject to the action of the House appointing them. The plaintiff\u2019s remedy, if any, is to procure compensation for his legal services by application to the next General .Assembly. His Honor rightly held that the employment of counsel was not provided for by the resolution. No Error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. T. 12. Btmiell and J. N. Holding, for plaintiff (appellant).",
      "Mr. TF. A. Guthrie, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THOMAS R. PURNELL v. W. H. WORTH, STATE TREASURER.\n\u201cArrington\u201d Committee-Legislative Committee-Necessary Expenses \u2014 Counsel Fees.\nA Legislative Committee appointed to investigate certain facts and report to the General Assembly is not authorized to-employ counsel under a provision for the payment of necessary expenses.\nPetitioN for mandamus, beard before Goldie, J., at September Term, 1895, of Waicb Superior Court, on a case agreed, which is fully set forth in the report of the ease of Bank v. Worth, ante. From the refusal of his Honor to grant the writ the plaintiff appealed.\nMessrs. T. 12. Btmiell and J. N. Holding, for plaintiff (appellant).\nMr. TF. A. Guthrie, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0157-01",
  "first_page_order": 185,
  "last_page_order": 186
}